Diaspora Dilemmas

All sorts of bizarre ideas have been thrown about and there's been talk about being tough with Malaysia in order to protect the interests of the Indian-origin Malaysians. Nothing could be more damaging

A summit of the Group of 15 nations of the Non-Aligned Conference, which
discusses economic issues, was to be held in New Delhi in 1993 when Shri
Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister. The administration of Mr Bill Clinton,
then in office, mounted an exercise through President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to
sabotage this summit. Some leaders of member-countries, including Mr Mubarak,
informed Shri Rao that they would not be able to attend the summit due to
domestic preoccupation. The real reason was the US pressure not to attend. The
summit had to be postponed since it would not have had the minimum quorum
of 12. It was held next year after reducing the quorum requirement to five
heads of state or government and three deputy heads. This came to be known as
the five plus three formula.

The postponement of the 1993 summit due to US machinations and the collusion
of Mr Mubarak with the US caused considerable embarrassment for Shri Rao and
India. Despite the postponement, Dr Mahatir Mohamad, the then Malaysian Prime
Minister, and President Suharto of Indonesia visited Delhi to express their
solidarity with the government of India at the time of its discomfiture.
Policy-makers in Delhi even now remember the role played by Mr Mubarak in
sabotaging the proposed New Delhi summit of 1993. That was one of the
reasons why, when a subsequent summit of the Group was held in Cairo, Shri A.B.
Vajpayee, the then Indian Prime Minister, did not attend it.

How many of us remember the campaign carried on by the Clinton Administration
against Malaysia and Dr Mahatir Mohamad. Dr Mahatir became a persona non grata
with the Clinton Administration because of his independent political and
economic policies. He was one of the very few Asian leaders not invited to the
US so long as Mr Clinton was the President. He followed independent policies not
only vis-a-vis the US, but also against the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and other US-dominated international financial institutions. When the economies
of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines collapsed in 1997, the
Malaysian economy remained largely unaffected, thanks to the vision of Dr
Mahatir. Even after the crisis broke out causing panic and demoralisation across
South-East and East Asia, he maintained his independent line and resisted many
of the ideas emanating from US-dominated financial institutions.

After having realised that Malaysia and its leaders could not be
bullied, the US administration changed its policies after Mr George Bush took
over as the President in 2001. Dr. Mahatir was invited to Washington DC after
9/11. The relations have since improved, but even now the Malaysian political
leadership resists US-inspired ideas, which it fears could be detrimental to its
national interests. A good example is its opposition to US-inspired ideas for
strengthening maritime security in the Malacca Strait.

What I had stated above would illustrate two things. Firstly, it is not
correct that Malaysia as a state has been ill-disposed towards India. Secondly,
it has a proud political leadership, which has not hesitated even to defy the
world's sole super-power when it felt it was necessary to do so in its national
interests.

It is important to remember this because in the wake of the recent
demonstrations by a large number of Malaysian citizens of Indian origin in Kuala
Lumpur and the visit to India of an important leader of the Hindu Rights Action
Front (HINDRAF), a coalition of Indian-origin organisations in Malaysia,
all sorts of bizarre ideas have been floating around for being tough with
Malaysia in order to protect the interests of the Indian-origin Malaysians. Any
idea of using the big stick against Malaysia-- even the very talk of it-- could
not only damage the state-to-state relations between the countries, but prove
detrimental to the relations of the Indian-origin Malaysian citizens with the
Muslim Malay majority. If we think we can cow down Malaysia through such strong
talk, we are mistaken--as the US and China learnt in the past. Let us not hurt
the sentiments of the proud leadership in Malaysia by indulging in such talk,
even if we don't follow this up.

India has four main interests with regard to the Indian-origin Malaysian
citizens: Firstly, that they progress economically and get their due share of
the national cake; secondly, that the Malaysian authorities refrain from actions
such as the demolition of Hindu temples and idols, which hurt the sentiments of
Hindus not only in Malaysia, but also all over the world; and thirdly, that the
Indian-origin Malaysians maintain harmonious relations with the Malay
Bhumiputras and the Chinese-origin Malaysians. These interests should be taken
up informally through back channels and not through public statements.

India should not give any impression that it has been showing belated
interest in these issues--after having remained oblivious to them for years--because
of the agitation of the HINDRAF. The HINDRAF is not the only representative of
the Indian-origin Malaysians. One does not even know the background of its
leaders and the extent of following they have in the Indian-origin community.
The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), which is part of the ruling coalition, and
some non-political opinion-makers of the Indian-origin Malaysians have shown
signs of discomfort and concern over the manner in which the leaders of the
HINDRAF have been agitating and projecting India as the mother country, which
should come to their help.

A group of Malaysian Tamil writers, which had recently visited Tamil Nadu,
had disagreed with the kind of picture being painted by the HINDRAF
leaders. It would be unwise for India to let itself be influenced by the
rhetoric of the HINDRAF leaders. The Malaysian government has been unwise
in trying to project the HINDRAF leaders as sympathisers of the LTTE and as
acting at the behest of Hindutva elements in India. We will be equally unwise if
we treat them as the sole and genuine representatives of the Indian-origin
people and let ourselves be influenced by their rhetoric.

Hindus all over the world have genuine reasons for anger over some of the
policies of successive Malaysian governments as pointed out by me in my previous
article titled Root
Causes of Hindu Anger . As good friends and well-wishers of Malaysia, we
have a right to expect that Kuala Lumpur will address these causes. But we
have no right under international law to act as the de jure protector of the
interests of the Indian-origin Malaysians.

During the Cultural Revolution in China under Mao-Zedong, the Chinese
authorities assumed aggressive postures as protectors of the interests of the
overseas Chinese all over the world. The ultimate result: The overseas Chinese
population was viewed in many countries as having extra-territorial loyalties to
China. By our words and statements, we should not unwittingly create similar
suspicions about the Indian-origin communities abroad.

When Mr Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, many felt concerned over the
high-profile interest taken by his government in cultivating the Indian-origin
diaspora abroad and over its implications for India's relations with countries
where these people live and for the future well-being of the Indian-origin
communities themselves. A well-argued article on this subject was written in
2003 by the late Shri J.N.Dixit, former Foreign Secretary, who
subsequently became the National Security Adviser to Dr.Manmohan Singh. A copy
of his article is annexed.